jackie hayes

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Mar 10, 2005 -> 03:09 AM) While I don't exactly remember watching the game, I've heard people say that his 20K game is the best pitched game they've ever seen... I'd say that, in general, when Wood is on -- especially when the curve is working -- he's better than anyone I've seen. Wasn't there some pitch in that game, the announcer said something like 'God couldn't hit that curve'? Not that Jesus can't hit a curveball... Last year, I thought to myself, man, I pray the Cubs lose. But with that pitching, I don't see how. People: God is a Sox fan! I really like this setup we have now -- get to watch some great pitching, just not enough for the Cubs to win.

I think there is some question about whether she was merely stating her opinion. And that's important precisely because she was involved. Suppose some man were accused of running down a small child with his car. His ex-wife saw the incident, knew it was unintentional, but she hated him enough to lie on the witness stand. Who wouldn't agree that she's a "b****"? Now suppose another woman who was not there says, 'Oh, he's such a jerk I just KNOW he killed the kid on purpose.' Misinformed, but not a b****. The journalist is acting as witness -- if she's misrepresenting the event on purpose (and even if you don't believe she is, I think we can agree that it's a plausible interpretation), that's more than 'speaking her mind.' She's not just saying 'The US sucks', which would be fair enough.

QUOTE(ChiSoxyGirl @ Mar 9, 2005 -> 12:46 AM) Well, I think that's sort of the point. Everyone rushed to call her a commie b****--but her boyfriend said stuff that was just as offensive and only half the outrage. I don't think that should be the point of this thread--but there's definitely some iniquity going on here. Again, though, god bless the new ignore function. QP said "the dead man", the Italian officer who helped rescue her, not the boyfriend. As for her boyfriend, my impression is simply that noone really cares what he says, since it's all hearsay anyway. But sure, I think it's fair that anyone calling her a b**** would concede that he's an asshole.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 9, 2005 -> 12:07 AM) I believe the chain was 1. "if she is a b****, is this guy an asshole?" 2. "no, because he didn't accuse the US of . . ." 3. "He's dead so he couldn't accuse" 4. "what's your point?" 5. "he couldn't accuse us of anything, he was dead" making #2 illogical I'm not certain why you quoted me? I was just pointing out that dead men don't talkmuch, they are kind of quiet. #2 is not illogical. I wouldn't call someone an asshole if they hadn't done the thing I objected to, either. If I see a guy in the park kicking dogs, I'd call him a jerk. I wouldn't call the jogger a jerk. Hey, who knows, he may enjoy seeing dogs kicked. But until I know that, I don't call him a jerk. There seems to be a need for a male asshole. Okay, I nominate her boyfriend. Now can we drop this silly line of argument?

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 8, 2005 -> 11:20 PM) You said he didn't make any accusations about why they were trying to kill him, I pointed out he was dead. Who knows what he was thinking? That doesn't make sense to me. We should label "assholes" because of what we think they might possibly say, even if we have no clue? Or are you trying to say that we shouldn't say anything bad about someone unless we can be certain about how everyone in the world feels about the same issue? Or is there a cosmic rule that every b**** comes with a bastard and vice versa? His point seemed to be that he wouldn't call someone names unless they actually did something. I don't like the "b****" comments, but this has nothing to do with gender. Same situation, male reporter, female soldier, you'd get bastard, asshole, whatever.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Mar 8, 2005 -> 03:25 AM) So according to Italian secret service agents, the US cut off the cell phones & that Italian soldiers were waiting at the airport as well. It seems that the testimonials of the Italian secret service agents at the scene are in direct conflict with the Pentagon story. And excuse me if I am skeptical of a Pentagon that earlier in this war tried to give us the heroic tale of Jessica Lynch -- and their story flew in the face of what actually happened. Now Italian Secret Service agents are backing the story produced by the journalist, so it kind of puts a damper on the "commie b****" theory regarding this case. Cuz Burlusconi can be called a lot of things but definitely not a Communist. Have any Italian SS agents actually spoken themselves, or is this hearsay all we have? B/c Scolari was not there, he has no credibility. And he's got more than one motive to exaggerate. We should have an investigation, obviously. But unless you can suggest a plausible motive, and reconcile all these odd coincidences in Sgrena's story, I'm inclined to believe the US military for now. Approaching cars must be a fairly common situation, they should have the drill pretty much down by now. So I'm sceptical that the soldiers were merely incompetant, although that's possible. As for the US trying (and failing) to assasinate her, c'mon, you don't actually believe that, do you? Besides the fact that no army unit would be unable to accomplish that, could the US possibly gain anything from this? Just b/c she's vain enough to believe the US would want HER dead, doesn't mean anyone should believe her. Not that I don't agree that the "commie"/"b****" comments are unhelpful.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Mar 8, 2005 -> 12:32 AM) 8675312 - 2004 1771 - 2003 Wow. Don't be discouraged! Every vote counts! And THEN some!

So wait, you're saying he wasn't in cf in that first game?

My big worry. So far in ST Felix Diaz hasn't reassured me, in case we have to dip into the 6th starter pool. Hopefully Hermanson will be able to patch up the rotation when it's needed.

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Mar 7, 2005 -> 04:32 PM) Some might go for the more Steals/More HR guy. Yeesh, for 3 hr and about 25 sb, when he's not getting on base? ROY candidate vs big disappointment? Open and shut, 2003. If anyone really thinks sb are THAT important, please explain, b/c that's plain nutty to me.

I'll take the good one, not the bad one. Is there really any question?

QUOTE(SoxFan562004 @ Mar 4, 2005 -> 11:40 PM) I agree with the leadoff hitter theory. That's why I'm excited for the Sox season if Pods and Iguchi can come through. Look at the Marlins 2 years ago, yeah Beckett and the staff were awesome, but I think Castillo and Pierree were the keys. You had teams like the Cubs and Yankees who could only pound the ball, but the Marlins were able to manufacture runs and cause chaos with average defenses. As far as their offense goes, they also had Pudge, Lee, Lowell, and Cabrera. The top of the lineup got on base, which is their key job. But I think it's easy to give them too much credit. Until Frank comes back at least, I don't think the middle of our lineup can match that. AJ helps (big), but Dye is not of that calibre. Incidentally, the Marlins' 2b that year was TRULY brutal on the basepaths, 21/40. So if you think Willie is bad... And we still don't know that Willie can't hit lhp. In the minors he hit lhp as well as rhp. He hasn't gotten the abs in the ML to decide the question either way, but it'd be odd to see that single ability not translate.

QUOTE(AddisonStSox @ Mar 4, 2005 -> 12:44 AM) Aaron Rowand had 17 SB in 2004. Willie Harris had 19 SB. The fleet-footed Willie Harris had 19 f'ing SB in 2004; nothing to be proud of. Don't even tell me that's not disappointing. His base-stealing form and knowledge on the bases have been criticized by everyone. Please. The dude is so tentative on the base paths it's not even funny. It's painful to watch him attempt to steal a base. Let's see the "magic" Rock can work with him. He hasn't been great, but this is more than a little selective. The vaunted leadoff duo of Pierre and Castillo had 45 and 21 sb last year, in a LOT more pa. (And Pierre's % was awful.) Looking at his success rate (73%), and the total number of steals, I'd say he could probably improve, but he's no disaster at stealing bases.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Mar 4, 2005 -> 12:40 AM) There are no battle lines either, there are some fans who can see that while Harris may not be the best 2b in the league, that he is very cheap, and has shown that he will hit around .270, has speed, great defensively, and hustles does the right thing on the field. There are other fans who beleive that Iguchi having played 0 real games will come in and dominate, therefore leaving no need for Harris. Hey, I'm a Harris fan, but those sure sound like battle lines to me...

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 3, 2005 -> 09:20 PM) Unless Jenks has a bang up spring... Does this get him started?

No matter the exemptions, a consumption tax will be regressive (b/c the rich save SO much). Other than that, it's all in the details. There's noone in their right mind who would prefer complicated to simple. Until the idea is fleshed out more, this is hot air. And btw, I still don't understand why Greenspan's word has any weight in this. He's the monetary policy guy, not 'economics czar'.

QUOTE(Punch and Judy Garland @ Mar 3, 2005 -> 07:24 PM) tradin Carlos got us SPod, Luis, El Duque, AJ."" we could have gotten more for Lee. We didn't get Duque and AJ for him. We could have traded Lee for a better player like Castillo and still have made some signings. How come I'm foolish for believing it was a bad deal now, but you aren't for thinking it was a good deal already? Probably has something to do with the only opinions welcome around this site anymore are those made by the kool-aid drinkers. Hopefully it's just b/c it's the beginning of a new season, and we all really want to be optimistic. It's too long of a season o/w. So even the posters who are mostly sceptical about the off-season moves (including the Lee trade) are not eager to get in any argument after which they'll be pigeonholed as 'wanting the Sox to lose' or some crap like that. Fwiw, I agree with a lot of what you say, and I also see where you're coming from on this. Lately the site does feel almost aggressively optimistic, not very welcoming to those who disagree with Ozzie. Just ignore it and keep posting.

QUOTE(rangercal @ Mar 3, 2005 -> 05:12 PM) Ill take him over willie any day. Imagine what Brooks boyer could do with this guy! Odds are, at least one of those K's in the picture belonged to Helms. This makes sense. We'd be getting a crappy version of Joe Randa for roughly the same salary. If the Sox are bound and determined to get rid of Willie (which makes zero sense, but I'll take it as given), at least get someone with some upside, not a rental journeyman.

QUOTE(shakes @ Mar 2, 2005 -> 09:52 PM) Any financials on the Mason signing? I'm guessing it'll be simial to Muhammed. Here's the story. 5 yrs, $20 mil, $7 mil guaranteed. A little less than Muhammad's deal, it sounds like. EDIT: Also, it's good to see the 2 teams most in need of a wr getting their guy, unlike the whole TO, rich-get-richer fiasco of last year.

QUOTE(EvilJester99 @ Mar 2, 2005 -> 10:59 PM) Prozac for some I see... its only the 1st game of ST... take it easy there killer. I wish someone would remind the announcers this as they rip Marte a new one. 1 game, first game, enough...

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Mar 1, 2005 -> 03:16 AM) wow, you are so right... thank you for helping me understand I didn't have a problem with the message of the film. I had a problem with the hopelessness that Maggie's character was placed. She had the backing of the WBA plus god knows how much $ from a law suit that in real life would have happened...but all she got was a mediocre hospital that failed to check for bed sores leading to an amputation and poor security which led to her death. I didn't have a problem believing that she could actually get to the title fight, which was nearly impossible...I had a problem with the lack of realism in order to force the characters into a horrible decision, which if were made by actual living and breathing people wouldn't have had the same outcome. I REALLY enjoyed acts 1 and 2 of this movie. I did not like the contrived and manipulative ending. but what the hell do I know?? I voted for bush...and hate homos :headshake PA, I wish I could explain it to you, but I just don't think you can understand something so complicated until you're 26, at least. It's grown-up stuff -- you understand, right?

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Feb 26, 2005 -> 03:35 PM) Just some things to be wary of with Muhsin; In 2002 he only had 63 receptions and 2003 only 54 receptions. Last year he really found a comfort zone with Jake Delhomme however, but it took at least a season to get that to work. So I don't know if he'll have major instant success, but Grossman has a big go to guy in the end zone now, which is what the Bears DESPERATELY needed. He's 31 at the moment, probably be about 34 since it's a multi-year deal when it's up, can he keep producing at that age? Still I think it's a great signing though, and the Bears shouldn't pull away from drafting a WR just beacuse they sign Muhammed. Edwards or Mike Williams could provide more in the long run than Benson or Williams, if Lovie Smith goes with a pass happy offense. His decline mostly coincided with Steve Smith's emergence, so I don't think this is much of a concern. I'm pretty happy about this, good work by the Bears. (I was hoping for Coles, somehow, but that never seemed very likely.) Whoever they take in the draft, this is a good move. It keeps them from drafting for need, they can go strictly for the best player, wr or not.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 24, 2005 -> 03:51 PM) Easy there with your wording. There is no economic incentive for giving. But the US leads the world in aid given. For many people the incentive is the feeling of making someone's life a little better. There is no incentive for me to get up early on a Saturday and referee peewee basketball, as I am a volunteer, but I do it anyway. Some people also believe that it is their religious duty to give to people less fortunate, whether it be from money or time or any other way they are able. Charity is a huge industry in the US, and it isn't because of incentive, because there is none. Like I said, charity happens. But the question is always, How much? I don't doubt for a second that it would be underprovided if government stepped aside. Put up all the soup kitchens you want, that's hardly comparable to SS and Medicaid and early education/decent lunch funding. Safety networks will exist anyway in tight-knit communities & families. But it doesn't accord with our sense of a 'good society' that individuals without a (reliable) family or church community should be allowed to fall through the cracks. I'm not entirely opposed to reforming some entitlement programs. I think entitlements should be fairly limited. But I hope it never gets taken out of government hands.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 24, 2005 -> 03:06 PM) So why does it have to be a governmental quarter, that started out at 35 cents of tax payers money? Why couldn't it be a private citizen's quarter going to fix a problem right in front of his face, with a result that he can view? I don't get the insistance that the government does stuff. There's no obvious incentive for individuals to provide something for other people. Even if it's valuable to them, individuals will tend to piggyback -- 'It's already being provided, my own contribution won't make a noticeable difference.' Charity happens, so it's not all-or-nothing, but social services (where the advantage isn't realized by one person) are almost certainly underprovided unless government organizes them.

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Feb 22, 2005 -> 03:09 AM) this was all thanks to Lorena Bobbits starting a new pattern Supposedly it's common (somewhat) in Thailand. They even have a euphemism for it: "feeding the ducks".